mixing the genes weakens them over time, and the unique abilities each has to ward off pathogens are lowered to the point of non Resistance, and mass death.

It is the dumbest thing in the world to do, and nature never does this. In nature the goal is to keep the DNA clean and pure as possible.

Only man mixes his domesticated farm animals to produce more milk, or beef...

Then after the damage he has done, he is forced to use massive amounts of antibiotics to keep them alive long enough to slaughter.

Mixing the genes is not only stupid, it is evil to the core.

Everything you've written here is utterly false.

Inbreeding is bad, it leads to genetic drift - this is when gene alleles disappear. This is bad, it reduces genetic variability. This means you have less genes to work with. Less variability means a population is more homogeneous, this means its far more susceptible to disease.

Crossbreeding is good, it leads to hybrid vigor. This is good, it means the offspring will be stronger.

Don't tell me that the child of a black person and a white person will score lower on an IQ test than the child of two white people, because if this is how you're looking at this, you're missing the point. It's not about IQ, and to avoid the subject of interracial relationships, which is a touchy subject here, let's just say that the child of a Swedish/French coupling is likely to be more resistant to disease than a pure Swede or a pure Frank. On the subject of IQs, the offspring of Caucasians and Japanese generally have higher IQs than pure Caucasians or pure Japanese.

There's no such thing as "pure DNA", this is just a racist fantasy with no basis in medical science. What you advocate is little more than inbreeding.

On the subject of getting more beef, if that's what you want, then you selectively breed fat cows together over generations. The result is an inbred purebred, and genetic problems which are rare general populations may present themselves in higher numbers.

Purebred dogs have tons of genetic problems, while mutts have comparatively fewer.

Inbreeding is bad, it leads to genetic drift - this is when gene alleles disappear. This is bad, it reduces genetic variability. This means you have less genes to work with. Less variability means a population is more homogeneous, this means its far more susceptible to disease.

Crossbreeding is good, it leads to hybrid vigor. This is good, it means the offspring will be stronger.

Don't tell me that the child of a black person and a white person will score lower on an IQ test than the child of two white people, because if this is how you're looking at this, you're missing the point. It's not about IQ, and to avoid the subject of interracial relationships, which is a touchy subject here, let's just say that the child of a Swedish/French coupling is likely to be more resistant to disease than a pure Swede or a pure Frank. On the subject of IQs, the offspring of Caucasians and Japanese generally have higher IQs than pure Caucasians or pure Japanese.

There's no such thing as "pure DNA", this is just a racist fantasy with no basis in medical science. What you advocate is little more than inbreeding.

On the subject of getting more beef, if that's what you want, then you selectively breed fat cows together over generations. The result is an inbred purebred, and genetic problems which are rare general populations may present themselves in higher numbers.

Purebred dogs have tons of genetic problems, while mutts have comparatively fewer.

So why did the genetic EVE and ADAM didn't had weak and sick children and why didn't that lead them to extinction?

__________________

"You carry eternal heritage in your blood."

"Good blood is our true wealth"

-- Deutsche Ahnenerbe e.V.

"We can have peace and security only as long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood."

I have been called an extremist, a reactionary, a revisionist, an elitist, a supremacist, a racist, a homophobe, an anti-Semite, a right-winger, a theocrat, a godless cynic, a fascist and, of course, a must for every German, a Nazi.

So, it should be expected that I have a foible for politically "incorrect" sites that every "modern," "decent," "civilized," "tolerant," and "enlightened" man is supposed to ignore and avoid.

BTW seeing this tree of genetic markers, you see the whole tree of humanity, the original tribe beeing in Africa, going north to colonize sahara and north africa, migrating to Australia and asia, and finally europe, each genetic marker beeing mutated from the preceeding. It doesn't mean that "white" are degenerated "blacks" or neither supperior to them, just that we are all really belonging to the same familly tree and are all one unique specie called Man and that we are responsible of how we survive and live together on this little planet.

Thats fine & Dandy with me, aslong as you understand that as human races (soon be species) we have to respect each other genetic integrity & avoid puking into other races genepools at any cost.

If our ancestors didn't segregate themesleves from other races back in Africa, we could all been one big miserable primitive inferior specie that could have been extinct by now,

Progressive Evolution is acheiveed by Genetic Isolation

If you accept & live that law, you are my friend regardless of your race

So why did the genetic EVE and ADAM didn't had weak and sick children and why didn't that lead them to extinction?

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor. While all people are related to her, there were also thousands of other people alive in her day, so do not equate this with the biblical notion of Eve. Mitochondrial Eve didn't live in the same time as the genetic Adam who is the most recent common male ancestor for all non-Africans, and the other genetic Adam who is the most recent common male ancestor for all people.

The influence of the genetic Eve's genes is not so great, therefore. If you think of her as the first human or something, then you would presume that she is responsible for all human offspring, when in fact she was just one of a few thousand humans whose offspring, over thousands of years, happened to have gotten around.

If you still don't understand, think of your family tree up to your great-grandmother. Yes, there are many people related to her, but people from the outside have come in every generation to produce the next; it's not as if her children mated together to produce your parents who mated together to produce you, no, percentage wise, your genes are about 50% from each parent, 25% from each grandparent, and 12.5% from your great-grandmother, while the remaining 87.5% comes from people not related to her.

No, evolution is achieved by surviving longer than the other, weaker bastards.

Evolution is not a popularity contest or some Survivor reality show

The genetically isolated moral minority prevails...Just liek our ancestors fought bravely in the caves & jungles against the Wild primates who were trying to rape their females & slow down their evolution with their reggressive genes

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor. While all people are related to her, there were also thousands of other people alive in her day, so do not equate this with the biblical notion of Eve. Mitochondrial Eve didn't live in the same time as the genetic Adam who is the most recent common male ancestor for all non-Africans, and the other genetic Adam who is the most recent common male ancestor for all people.

The influence of the genetic Eve's genes is not so great, therefore. If you think of her as the first human or something, then you would presume that she is responsible for all human offspring, when in fact she was just one of a few thousand humans whose offspring, over thousands of years, happened to have gotten around.

They all lived in Africa and you claim that they were a few thousand.

So you agree that the genetic diversity was smaller than per example in nowadays Europe?